Essential elements

2026 MLD 962 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Essential elementsReasonable / probable cause and maliceScope

Malicious prosecution is a tort recognized under the principles of English common law, which provides a remedy to individuals who have been subjected to criminal prosecution without reasonable and probable cause and with malice

To bring a successful claim for malicious prosecution, it is essential for the plaintiff to establish: (i) that they were prosecuted; (ii) that the prosecution ended in their favor; (iii) that the prosecution was initiated without reasonable and probable cause; and (iv) that it was actuated by malice

Absence of reasonable and probable cause alone is insufficient to prove malice; while it may serve as a relevant circumstance, but the plaintiff must prove malice, defined as a wrongful or improper motive

Malice is a subjective state of mind and may be inferred from surrounding circumstances, but inference alone must be supported by credible evidence

Therefore, even where reasonable cause may appear weak or absent, a claim for malicious prosecution cannot succeed unless mala fide intent is clearly demonstrated

In the present case, the first two elements are not in dispute: the petitioner / plaintiff was prosecuted and subsequently acquitted

However, as remaining elements, specifically the absence of reasonable and probable cause, and the presence of malice , the petitioner / plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof

A perusal of the FIR and the facts narrated therein revealed that the respondents had reasonable grounds to suspect the involvement of the petitioner and his co-accused in the events surrounding the death of person mentioned in FIR (deceased)

It was admitted fact that the deceased was initially injured by receiving bullet injuries, after which he succumbed to his injuries

In such circumstances, the lodging of an FIR and initiation of criminal proceedings could not be deemed as lacking in probable cause

Additionally, there was no evidence on record to support the assertion that the FIR was lodged with malafide intent

On the contrary, the FIR was registered pursuant to an order of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace under S.22-A Cr.P.C., and the matter proceeded through a regular investigation, culminating in submission of a challan and a full trial

If the complaint had been found to be frivolous or baseless, the investigating agency would have discharged the petitioner (accused / plaintiff) at the initial stage

The fact that the petitioner was ultimately acquitted did not, by itself, establish that the prosecution was malicious

It is trite law that malice cannot be presumed merely from the outcome of acquittal or failure to secure a conviction

Appellate court had rightly applied the settled legal principles while setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, which were based on sound reasoning and did not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, or error warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction

Revision petition, filed by plaintiff was dismissed, in circumstances.

2020 PLD 38 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Damages, recovery ofEssential elementsCriminal case was got registered against the plaintiff wherein he was dischargedPlaintiff filed suit for recovery of damages on the basis of malicious prosecution but the plaint was rejectedValidity

Prosecution of a criminal offence would only provide a cause for damages for malicious prosecution to the acquitted accused if it was based on malice of the complainant and was without any reasonable and probable cause

Civil case between the parties was pending before Civil Judge

Prosecution of a criminal offence was not without probable and reasonable cause, in circumstances

Plaintiff was acquitted from criminal case on the ground that prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt

Nothing was on record that defendant had involved the plaintiff in criminal case with malice and without probable or reasonable cause

Acquittal of plaintiff from the criminal case was not on merit rather it was on technical ground

Plaintiff was not entitled for any damages, in circumstances

Plaintiff had filed the suit alter lapse of four years which was barred by time

No illegalities or irregularities had been pointed out in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2020 MLD 14 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Damages, recovery ofEssential elements

Criminal case was got registered against the plaintiffs wherein they were acquitted on the basis of concessional statement of defendant

Plaintiffs filed suit for recovery of damages on the basis of malicious prosecution which was decreed by the Trial Court but Appellate Court dismissed the same

Validity

Every criminal case which ended in acquittal of accused would not per se entitle the accused to file a suit for compensation

Remedy of malicious prosecution was available to one who had been wrongly involved/implicated in criminal prosecution

Abuse of civil proceedings might also afford the right to respondent to bring an action for malicious prosecution

Plaintiff who had brought the claim for compensation on account of malicious prosecution should establish the connection between reasonable and probable cause and the malice

Mere fact that plaintiff had been prosecuted and acquitted would not suffice for the purpose of bringing an action for malicious prosecution so long as he had proved absence of reasonable and probable cause and malice

Plaintiff for an action for malicious prosecution to succeed must prove that he had suffered damages/loss as a result of wrongful prosecution

Plaintiffs had been attributed specific role for abduction in the present case and they were found guilty of the offence

Plaintiffs were acquitted due to concessional statements of defendant

Nothing was on record that criminal cases were initiated without any probable cause or same were based on malice

Plaintiffs had failed to establish their case for award of compensation

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2020 MLD 14 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Essential elements

Initiation or continuation of lawsuit; lack of probable cause for the lawsuit's initiation; malice; and favorable termination of the original lawsuit.

2020 PLD 700 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Damages, recovery ofEssential elementsAction for "malicious prosecution" was distinct from an action for "false arrest or false imprisonment"

If a person was arrested by a police officer who had no authority for the arrest then proper remedy was an action for false imprisonment

Action for malicious prosecution was appropriate only when judicial system had been misused

Nothing was on record to establish that there was any personal enmity or grudge between the plaintiff and defendant which resulted in the indictment of plaintiff in the case

Element of malice was missing in the present case

Plaintiff had been acquitted from the criminal case but mere acquittal did not confer any right for damages on the basis of malicious prosecution

Plaintiff had been acquitted from the criminal case by extending benefit of doubt and due to defective investigation

Plaintiff had failed to substantiate his stance of malicious prosecution and that defendant had acted without any reasonable or probable cause

Suit for damages could only be decreed when all the ingredients of malicious prosecution had been established

Suit had been filed after a delay of four years and was time-barred

Plaintiff in order to extend cause of action and bring his suit within period of limitation had sent legal notice to the defendant

Nothing was on record to establish that said notice was actually sent and received by the defendant

Mere issuance of legal notice would not ipso facto extend the cause of action for filing the present suit

Suit was dismissed, in circumstances.

2019 MLD 384 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Damages, recovery ofEssential elements

Criminal case was got registered against the plaintiffs wherein they were acquitted holding that prosecution was biased and mala fide

Plaintiffs filed suit for recovery of damages on the basis of malicious prosecution which was dismissed

Validity

Complaint/prosecution initiated against the plaintiffs culminated in their acquittal with observations of the Court that the registration of case was result of extreme mala fide and malice

Plaintiffs faced agonies of trial and they were arrested by the police and their precious time was spent in facing criminal case

Criminal trial proceeded for about two years and plaintiffs had incurred financial expenditures as well

Plaintiffs and defendant were brothers inter se and were children of a respectable person

Service of legal notice before filing of suit was mandatory only for suits under Defamation Ordinance, 2002 and not in suits of like nature

Where plaintiffs were acquitted honourably with positive findings in their favour that they were prosecuted with mala fide intention then main cause of their prosecution had been established to be rivalry over "Sajada Nasheeni"

Loss of reputation could not be determined in terms of money nor it was necessary to produce general public in whose estimation reputation was downgraded

Where plaintiffs had claimed certain amount as damages then Court was empowered to award general damages keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case

Trial Court in absence of any method to determine a fair assessment of damages was still under obligation to decide an amount of money as compensation keeping in view facts and circumstances placed on record by the plaintiffs

High Court while considering evidence led by the parties and agonies of plaintiffs in facing the trial assessed and allowed general damages under the rule of thumb and granted a decree to the tune of Rs. 10,000,000/- to the plaintiffs

Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was set aside and suit of plaintiffs was decreed to the extent of general damages of Rs. 10,000,000/- to be recovered from the defendant

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

2019 MLD 314 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Suit for damagesEssential elementsCriminal case was got registered against the plaintiff wherein he was acquitted on benefit of doubtPlaintiff filed suit for recovery of damages on the basis of malicious prosecution which was decreedValidityPlaintiff had filed suit for award of general damages on account of malicious prosecution

Every criminal prosecution which ended in the acquittal of accused would not per se entitle the accused to file a suit for damages/ compensation

Original proceedings must have been malicious and without cause

Action for malicious prosecution was available as a remedy to one who had been wrongly involved/implicated in a criminal or civil proceedings

Plaintiff was required to establish the connection between reasonable and probable cause and the malice

Mere fact that plaintiff was prosecuted and acquitted would not suffice for the purposes of an action for malicious prosecution so long as he also proved the absence of reasonable and probable cause and malice

Burden to prove malicious prosecution would be on the plaintiff

Defendant-complainant was inflicted injuries by the accused and he was examined by the medical officer who appeared before the Court in support of his statement

Initiation of criminal proceedings against the plaintiff was neither without any reason and probable cause nor based on any malice

Acquittal of accused on the basis of some earlier compromise and extending him benefit of doubt would not clothe him with a cause to bring a suit for damages

Courts below had failed to appreciate the law and facts of the present case

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were set aside

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

2018 SCMR 1139 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

"Influence peddling", offence of [Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985 (Canada), c. C-46, s. 121(1)(d)(i)]Essential elements

Accused accepting benefits from a company as consideration for assisting the company in selling its products by using his Government contacts

Question as to whether assistance accused promised to provide was in connection with any matter of business relating to government

"Any matter of business relating to the government"

Meaning

Accused was former senior advisor in the Office of the Prime Minister

Year following his departure from this position, he agreed to use his government contacts to help a company sell water treatment systems to an indigenous community

In exchange, the company promised to pay a commission to accused's then girl friend

After the agreement was made, accused spoke to government officials in order to promote the purchase of company's products and sought to convince the relevant Government department to set up a project whereby it would fund the purchase of company's products to pilot them in indigenous communities

Section 121(1)(d)(i) of the Criminal Code (of Canada) criminalized the selling of influence in connection with any matter of business relating to the government

Accused was charged with influence peddling under S. 121(1)(d) and at trial, he took the position that his assistance was not in connection with a matter of business relating to the government

Trial judge agreed and acquitted him on the basis that the indigenous community, rather than Government, decided whether to purchase the type of water treatment systems sold by the company

Court of Appeal however, set aside the acquittal, and entered a verdict of guilty and remitted the matter to the Trial judge for sentencing

[Per Karakatsanis, J (Majority view): held, that by criminalizing influence peddling, S. 121(1)(d) of the Criminal Code (of Canada) strived to preserve both Government integrity and the appearance of Government integrity; it helped ensure that Government activity was driven by the public interest and promoted confidence in the democratic process

Section 121(1)(d) created a conduct offence

Offence was complete once the accused demanded a benefit in exchange for a promise to exercise influence in connection with a matter of business that related to Government

Accused did not need to actually have influence with the Government, endeavoured to exercise influence, or succeeded in influencing Government to be found guilty of said offence

Relevant constituent elements of the offence were: having or pretending to have influence with the Government, a minister, or an official; directly or indirectly demanding, accepting, or offering or agreeing to accept a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind for oneself or another person; as consideration for the cooperation, assistance, exercise of influence, or an act or omission; in connection with a transaction of business with or any matter of business relating to the Government

Offence under S. 121(1)(d)(i) required that the promised influence be in fact connected to a matter of business that related to Government

Simply showing that the accused accepted a benefit in exchange for promising to influence Government did not suffice to make out the offence

Nevertheless, the phrase "any matter of business relating to the government" must be interpreted broadly

Any matter of business related to the Government if it depended on Government action or could be facilitated by the Government, given its mandate

Matters of business relating to the Government included publicly funded commercial transactions for which the Government could impose or amend terms and conditions that would favour one vendor over others

Phrase "any matter of business relating to the government" must not be restricted to matters of business that could be facilitated by Government under its existing operational structure

Offence in question captured promises to exercise influence to change or expand Government programs

In the present case accused's promised assistance was in connection with a matter of business relating to the Government

Federal Government had the authority to provide services, including clean drinking water, on reserves for indigenous communities, therefore, it could have facilitated the sale of company's products to such communities

Although, at the time of the offence, indigenous communities could have purchased systems such as the company's with Government funds without obtaining Government's prior approval, the Government could have changed its mode of operations, modified its funding structure or terms and conditions, or created new pilot projects in a manner favorable to the company

Further, it was clear that the accused believed, at the time he made the agreement, that the sale of company's products to indigenous communities could be facilitated by the Government

By demanding a benefit in exchange for his promise to exercise his influence with the Government to the company's advantage, the accused undermined the appearance of Government integrity, therefore, he was guilty of influence peddling contrary to S. 121(1)(d)(i) of the Criminal Code (of Canada)

Present case should be remitted to the Trial judge for sentencing]

[Côté, J. dissenting (Minority view): Scope of S. 121(1)(d) should be limited to matters of business that depended on some Government approval or action within existing operational structures of Government

Any relationship between the matter of business concerned and the Government must exist at the time of the corrupt agreement

Where the Government had intentionally placed matters of business outside of its operational reach, they could not be said to be matters of Government business simply because the Government could, at a future date, reclaim control over them

Matter of business would relate to the Government only if the operational structures in place at the time of the corrupt agreement were such that it depended on some Government approval or action

Agreement between the accused and the company was not made in connection with a matter of business relating to the Government

Matter of business contemplated by the agreement was the sale of point-of-use water treatment systems to indigenous communities

As the Federal Government had, at the time of the corrupt agreement, granted indigenous communities complete autonomy with regard to the purchase of point-of-use water treatment systems, the corrupt agree-ment could not be said to be in connection with a matter of business relating to the Government

Accused had to be acquitted in such circumstances]

Appeal against conviction was dismissed.

2017 SCMR 1787 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 54Sale of immoveable propertyEssential elements

Essential elements of sale were, first, the parties; second, the subject matter; third, the transfer or conveyance, and, fourth, price or consideration.

2017 CLD 1459 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 54Sale of immoveable propertyEssential elements

Essential elements of sale were, first, the parties; second, the subject matter; third, the transfer or conveyance, and, fourth, price or consideration.

2017 YLR 224 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 42Suit for declarationBenami transactionEssential elementsMotive for benami transaction

Contention of plaintiff was that suit property was got transferred in the name of defendant as he was government servant

Suit was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Essential elements to establish benami transaction were agreement either express or implied between the ostensible owner and the purchaser for the purchase of property in the name of ostensible owner for the benefit of the person who had to make payment of the consideration and transaction actually entered between the real purchaser and seller to which ostensible owner was not party

Plaintiff could not prove agreement with regard to transfer of the suit property in his name by the defendant from the evidence available on record

No specific motive for transfer of suit land in favour of defendant was on record

If motive for benami transaction was to make assets through money earned illegally, the same could not be valid

Discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under S. 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 could not be exercised in favour of plaintiff to allow him to reap benefit of his illegal gains

Plaintiff was in government service at the time of transaction of suit property and could not get the suit property transferred in his own name

Plaintiff having not proved the nature of transaction as benami suit was rightly dismissed

Plaintiff who could not explain the source of his income, could not purchase suit property

No illegality or procedural irregularity was pointed out in the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below

Revision was dismissed in limine.

2017 YLRN 442 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 6"Terrorism"Essential elements

To constitute an offence of terrorism for the purpose of attracting any provision or Schedule to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the element of striking terror or creating of sense of fear and insecurity in public at large by doing any act or thing was essential

Such act should be committed with the sole object to terrorize the people and to feel them insecure.

2016 YLR 2413 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Essential elements

Whether a transaction was benami or not was to be proved with five ingredients: first source of consideration and its payment, second motive for benami transaction, third, real intention of parties; fourth, possession of property and fifth, possession and production of the document.

2015 SCMR 1097 SUPREME-COURT-OF-UK Judicial Precedent

Intentionally causing psychological harmEssential elements

Tort of intentionally causing psychological harm as recognized in the case of Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57, contained three elements: "conduct element", "mental element" and "consequence element"

'Conduct element' required words or conduct directed towards the claimant for which there was no justification or reasonable excuse, and the burden of proof was on the claimant

For the 'mental element', the necessary intention of causing psychological harm must be inferred from the facts in the particular case

Intention need not be actually to cause the psychological illness which resulted (although such an illness was a necessary component of the tort under the consequence element), it was sufficient that the defendant intended to cause severe distress

Recklessness as to causing severe distress would not be sufficient to constitute the tort, an actual intention to cause severe distress was required

'Consequence element' required for constituting the tort was recognised psychiatric illness or physical harm.